Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-06-06
ANALYZING LOVE In COURT.
Decision Affecting wives Who Only
Tolerate Their lEusbands.

Judge Rittenhouse, OF the District Court, In Dep
yer, Col, has adJudged that certain property
which Andrew Medium conveyed TO his wife be.
fore they were divorced shall be given back TO
Medium, because the judge believes that at tho
time OF the transfer TO the wife she did not love
him and hence she got the property by fraud Tho
decision is considered one OF the most extraordi.
nary known 10 the legal profession and the
judges quaint and original view OF the case has
caused much comment The Judges opinion is q
dissertation on love. He holds that the wii0
should remain In possession OF the property which
Medium gave her when they were first mau1ed
because she then lOved him and fully intended tn
remain his wife. But afterward she met Charlie
MITCHELL the prize-fghter, and here the trouble
began
Mitchell had stopped at her fathers house, and
Dolly and Mitchell had correspondent. but they
separated, and Dolly met and married Medium,
who was a itch miner. He gave her an elegant
home, diamonds and horses and carriages and
conveyed considerable property 10 her. She went
10 California on visit, end there met Mitchell
again for the first time since her marriage, Mel.
drum heard OF IL and was jealous. She soothed
Meldrum, and induced him TO convey more prop.
erty 10 her. She then left Medium, and he got q
divorce and brought this suit To recover the lasC
property decided TO her.
Judge Rittenhouse says In his decision: ssThe
evidence satisfies this court that after that tims
this feeling, which is described by the defendant
herself as love and affection, but which the court
cannot say was love and affection, but only tolera.
tion-simply liberation or the presence OF thus
man In view OF the fact that he was her husband--
that this feeling had been undergoing, perhaps.
prior TO this time, somewhat or change, tins
feeling OF liberation growing into gradual incil.
ference TO him aud his interests, and this growing
in degrees until it passed the line OF Indifference
and became dislike, and rpened from that intl
antipathy and dislike and despair; and that sh5
reached point where hate became the dominant
passlon-hate toward him, utter dislike, utter
disgust: and that then she conceived the design
that she would obtain from him all that was pos
SiOle and then desert and abandon him
"AS mere moral matter the court does not look
upon that as anything particularly henous-thaJ
is, this change OF heart from liberation 10 disgust
IL Is one or the things that even philosophers can
not trace, and the emotions or love and hate ara
entirely independent OF the WILL Ii is not any
particular act that person does that makes one
love or hate. IL is an indeflnabe something-a
force between two individuals that causes thesa
emotions OF love and hate and no human philoso-
ply can trace it. So the mere fact OF change don't
appear TO the court TO be particularly dark and
heinous. IT IS only the purpose that is formed as
the result OF this, and even that may be excusable
upon moral grounds, IL il is not upon legal ones
the PURPOSE the design that resulted from this dis
gust that ended In despair and In her getting prop.
erty from her husband TO her own use and benefit
and then abandoning him and ceaslng to live with
him his wife-a of loving"